Arlington Planning & Zoning Meeting Dec 3, 2025
Arlington Planning & Zoning Meeting Dec 3, 2025
The December 3, 2025, regular session of the Arlington City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed two primary zoning amendment cases (PD 24-27 and PD 25-16) and continued a third case (PD 25-14). The meeting featured extensive public testimony and board deliberation focused on housing density, infrastructure capacity, adherence to the U.S. 287 corridor plan, and the impact of Texas Senate Bill 840.
Consent Calendar
- Approved the minutes of the November 12, 2025, regular session agenda by a vote of 8 to 0 (no changes or corrections requested).
Public Comments & Testimony
- Supporters:
- Applicant representative (Naveen) stated the project is a necessary improvement for the property, which has suffered from illegal activities and disrepair, and argued the three-unit design is the economic limit for the small site.
- Andy Nguyen (co-principal) expressed that the design complies with city planning and improves the character of the area, rejecting the notion of commercial use being feasible there.
- Wayne Bergdorf (listing broker) expressed strong support, noting the property has been marketed for years with no commercial interest, and argued the location is ideal for apartments to service residents needing access to the freeway rather than neighborhood streets.
- Opponents:
- David Crawford (representing Lago Vista HOA) stated that the project violates the U.S. 287 strategic corridor plan's designation for low-density residential, eliminates future commercial tax revenue, and ignores the need for a buffer zone, creating a significant deviation from community expectations.
- Alan Vaughn expressed concern regarding the retention pond's size and drainage direction, noting existing drainage issues in the area and requesting a Corps of Engineers review before proceeding.
- Paul Gooch expressed that the current traffic congestion on Sublett Road is severe and projected further increases would create a "nightmare" and impact neighborhoods north of the site.
- Robert Shaw argued the development lacks appropriate screening, poses fire access challenges on narrow private roads, and sets a negative precedent by not adhering to single-family zoning expectations.
- Linda Simpson stated that the increase in traffic would dangerously impact emergency vehicle access, citing the high proportion of elderly residents and recent ambulance delays.
- Rosa Mitchell strongly opposed the project, stating it violates long-range city planning, introduces excessive density directly behind single-family homes, and permanently alters the privacy and character of the neighborhood.
- Multiple other residents voiced concerns regarding traffic congestion, drainage issues, and the violation of the U.S. 287 corridor plan.
Discussion Items
- PD 24-27 (301 East Randall Mill Road):
- Staff and the applicant discussed deviations regarding density, lot area, landscaping, and buffering. Commissioner Greer questioned the impact of right-of-way dedication on density calculations, confirming the applicant still requires a deviation. Commissioner Winkles inquired about fire lane placement and the potential for unauthorized parking behind garages.
- Commissioner Blake and others raised concerns about the property's current condition (illegal parking, structural issues) versus the proposed improvement. The applicant clarified trash collection logistics will follow current residents' patterns at the curb along Randall Mill.
- PD 25-14 (6001/6004 US Highway):
- The applicant appeared and requested a continuance, which was granted by the board.
- PD 25-16 (6001/6004 US Highway 287 & 616 Myers Road):
- Staff and applicant discussed a proposed 200-foot commercial frontage along US 287, with the applicant declining to include it due to their residential focus. Commissioner Blake and others questioned why the developer would refuse to preserve commercial potential.
- Extensive debate occurred regarding the impact of Texas Senate Bill 840 (SB 840). Commissioners noted that without this Planned Development process, the developer could legally build high-rise apartments by right elsewhere or on the backage with fewer controls. Commissioner Blake argued that accepting the current proposal offers the city some control over design and density, whereas rejecting it could lead to an uncontrolled outcome.
- Commissioners Ware and Finley expressed strong opposition to the project, citing the U.S. 287 strategic corridor plan, the lack of a neighborhood meeting, and unresolved infrastructure (traffic lights, drainage) as reasons to deny the motion. Commissioner Blake noted the project aligns with the need for affordable luxury housing for young graduates but acknowledged the infrastructure timing is a concern.
- Commissioner Carter noted that while he supports multifamily use in the area, the current infrastructure is not ready, and the timing is wrong.
Key Outcomes
- PD 24-27 (301 East Randall Mill Road): Approved 8 to 0 with staff stipulations (including visitor parking layout adjustments and buffer yard modifications). The motion passed after Commissioner Ware noted no opposition.
- PD 25-14: Continued to a future date at the applicant's request (Vote: 7 to 1).
- PD 25-16 (6001/6004 US Highway 287 & 616 Myers Road): Denied 3 to 4. The motion to approve with staff stipulations failed due to insufficient support, with commissioners expressing concerns over traffic, drainage, and alignment with the U.S. 287 corridor plan.
- Future Actions: The Planning and Zoning Commission noted that applicants denied by the commission may appeal to the City Council. The next regular session is scheduled for December 17, 2025, at 5:30 PM.
Meeting Transcript
Ladies and gentlemen, my name again is Dr. Ignacio Nunez, and as chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Arlington, I hereby call this regularly noticed meeting of the City of Arlington's Planning and Zoning Commission regular session to order for December the 3rd, 2025. At this time, I'll ask our administration to read the speaker guidelines and general decorum. We ask that the citizens and other speakers in attendance assist in preserving the order and decorum of this meeting and to provide for attendance at and participation in the meeting without fear of intimidation, threats, or hostility. Any person making personal, profane, hostile, slanderous, or threatening remarks, who uses vulgar or obscene language, who engages in any other actions that disturb or are calculated to disturb the meeting, or who becomes disruptive while addressing the planning and zoning commissioners, or while attending the planning and zoning meeting may be removed from the council chambers. All speakers shall address the commissioners and not the audience or city staff and shall not call out individually named members of city staff or the public. For speakers tonight, when your name is called, please come to the microphone at the podium and state your name and city of residence for the record. The applicant will be asked to speak first and will be given 10 minutes to make a presentation. Speakers in support or opposition of the item will each be given uh excuse me two minutes each to make their statements. If there are many speakers for an item, each speaker will be given two minutes to make their statements. The applicants will then be given five minutes for any rebuttal. If multiple speakers plan to provide the same or similar comments, those speakers may, if they so desire, designate one or more individuals to provide public comment on behalf of the group. A bell will signal the end of each speaker's time. In consideration of other speakers, please conclude your comments promptly when you hear the bell. We ask that you address your comments to the planning and zoning commissioners. Thank you very much. First item of business is a copy of the minutes of our November the 12th, 2025 regular session agenda meeting. We're sent to all the commissioners in advance. Were there any changes or corrections needed to these minutes? Saying none, I have a motion to approve by Commissioner Ware and a second by Commissioner Finlay. Please cast your vote. Motion passes 8 to nothing. Tonight we have three zoning cases on the agenda. The first item is PD 24-27, addressed at approximately 301 East Randall Mill Road. This is an application for approval of a change in zoning from entertainment district overlay, residential, single family, to plan development for residential, medium density, RM12, with a development plan on approximately a quarter of an acre. This time I'll call on our staff to present its report on PD 24 7. Good evening, Commissioners and everyone present here tonight. For the record, Tarani Devi Palma, principal planner with the planning and development services here to present PD 24-27. This is a property thus located on Randall Mill Road, specifically 301 East Randall Mill Road. The subject properties, approximately 0.23 acres, and the properties currently zoned RS 7.2, which is residential single family 7.2. It is in the entertainment district overlay. And the request is from the applicant to change it to a planned development for entertainment district overlay with residential medium density. That's RM12 uses with the development plan for townhomes. This is the site of the subject property, and the subject property was annexed into the city of Arlington in 1958, and the structure is currently wakened. Looking at the zoning map, the adjacent properties to the east and south are zoned EDO OC, which is office commercial, and they're developed with commercial uses. And the properties to the west and north are zoned EDORS 7.2, which is single family 7.2, and to the property to the west is a single family home, and to the north is a church. These are the site photos of the subject property and also the adjustment property and the Randall Mill Road. Primary access to the site will be off of Randall Mill Road. And the townhomes will be accessed off of a 25 feet private access easement as shown. The floor plan for the first and second floor are provided here. The unit one and unit three are similar in layout, and the unit two has a different layout and has a much larger living space than unit one and unit three. These are the elevations that are being proposed, and the plan proposes brick and cementitude fiber board on all the facades, primarily brick on the first floor and cementitude fiber board on the second floor. The south elevation that will be facing the Randall Mill Road is 100% brick. The roofs picture the roofs feature a pitched design with an asphalt single covering and a minimum roof pitcher 4 is to 12. The garage is aligned with the building facade and features a single single door entry. The pedestrian entrance for unit one and unit three are on the sides of the building, and the entrance to the unit two is in the front of the private drive. Variations in building facades and window placements are integrated to add character and establish an identity to the community. I'm gonna go back to the site plan. The private drive that is proposed is to be 25 feet wide. However, the fire department must have access to all the portions of the structure within 150 feet of an approved fire line.
openpublica.com